Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:26:26 +0530 | From | Vineet Gupta <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] Ensure that kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined into non __init code |
| |
On Friday 21 December 2012 12:53 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On Friday 21 December 2012 12:50 PM, Al Viro wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: >>> Commit d6b2123802d "make sure that we always have a return path from >>> kernel_execve()" reshuffled kernel_init()/init_post() to ensure that >>> kernel_execve() has a caller to return to. >>> >>> It removed __init annotation for kernel_init() and introduced/calls a >>> new routine kernel_init_freeable(). Latter however is inlined by any >>> reasonable compiler (ARC gcc 4.4 in this case), causing slight code >>> bloat. >> Interesting... I assumed that explicitly set different section would be >> enough, but I'd been wrong (or the original noinline would've been pointless, >> now that I think of it). Consider it ACKed; I can pick it through signal.git, >> and while it's not urgent I'd send it to Linus after -rc1, with Cc: stable. >> Or you can send it to him yourself with my usual Acked-by - up to you. > > Merging via your signal.git is fine. > > Thx, > -Vineet >
Hi Al,
Tickled by a spurious mail from "Kbuild test robot" with this change getting committed into your tree (please see below, which Fengguang acknowledged as a script error) I took a peek at the commit and it seems the commit log is truncated when describing the New call chain of kernel_init. If that's too much you might wanna delete all of the Old vs. New Call chains or preferably restore the "New" part.
Sorry for the nit.
Thx, -Vineet
-------------->8------------------------- tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/signal.git for-linus head: 07570a268090d0a209d957e46d164900999c9e5b commit: ec21b1033ee6dce41be78c10844f6169566d9d06 [1/6] Ensure that kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined into non __init code config: x86_64-randconfig-s542 (attached as .config)
Note: it may well be a FALSE warning. FWIW you are at least aware of it now. -------------->8-------------------------
| |